First Clear Picture of the Narada *Spoilers?* [not final toy image]

[Psion]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams.

Two years ago, Paramount thought it worth the risk to invest in a new Star Trek movie. Therefore Star Trek wasn't dead.

On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams.

You didn't say anything different, you just rephrased it. Hair-splitting.

Hair-splitting? Mr. Bailey, if you were my doctor, you'd listen to my heart through a stethoscope and pronounce me dead between each beat. What was it, two years after Enterprise was canceled before Abrams got the go-ahead for his film? The franchise was no more dead then than it was between the movies back in the eighties. "Star Trek was dead before Abrams." Really, you give the man too much credit. He just had enough of a name to renew corporate interest in the franchise a little earlier than it would have anyway. Look at the Batman and Superman franchises ... they went decades between new movies, and you're penning the obituary for Trek because nothing was done in a two year hiatus?

Unlike you, I do care whether Star Trek continues. Whenever the familiar fanfare plays over the Paramount logo in a movie I haven't seen before, my heart skips a beat and there's a little extra moisture in my eyes. I like the characters and I like the setting. I love the picture of an optimistic future Star Trek represents. And I love seeing the Enterprise kick ass and come out on top ... even if it doesn't actually fire a shot. I'd just prefer it doesn't keep getting watered-down with flakier and flakier notions of what looks good on screen. I'd also like to see some serious, hard SF in a Star Trek movie now and then, instead of the slide into techno-babble fantasy that became Voyager's hallmark (although that was certainly never unique to Voyager). This is why I've been careful to couch most of my criticisms of the upcoming movie in terms of the art direction. What I see there simply isn't believable, nor is it especially iconographic of something that could be believable if they had a bigger budget and a glimpse of what the 23rd Century will really look like. But that's absolutely no reflection of the writing, acting, soundtrack, or cinematography, and I dearly hope the movie shines brighter in those categories than it does in the art direction. If it doesn't, then there's a real chance I'll never enjoy that swell in my chest and sigh of satisfaction I've come to love at a fresh premier.

 

[Gepard]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

What was it, two years after Enterprise was canceled before Abrams got the go-ahead for his film? The franchise was no more dead then than it was between the movies back in the eighties.

I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

What was it, two years after Enterprise was canceled before Abrams got the go-ahead for his film? The franchise was no more dead then than it was between the movies back in the eighties.

I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.

Or if some don't like altogether dead, at least dead in the form that it had existed up until that point.
Enter a fresh, reimagined approach whose success or failure remains to be seen.

 

[Cyke101]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

I may be late to the party, but I just want to point this clip out:

http://www.denofgeek.com/misc/177982/top_sfx_shots_no40_star_trek_the_motion_picture.html

Nothing before or since that clip has been in Trek, and it was downright terrifying back then. The idea that a huge machine could swallow the Enterprise is scary enough, but just the artistry and the aesthetics add to the glory that is V'Ger. To top it off, no, it doesn't look like anything in Trek.

If the powers that be can add something non-Trek in 1978, why can't they be allowed to do that in 2009?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Yeah, hair-splitting is what I said.

Damn thing was dead and can return to that if this movie doesn't succeed. No biggie.

I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.

They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.

 

[Gepard]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.

Good point. I'd forgotten about that.

 

[Psion]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Yeah, hair-splitting is what I said.

I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.

They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.

And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.

Yeah ... really dead.

 

[ST-One]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Yeah, hair-splitting is what I said.

I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.

They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.

And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.

Yeah ... really dead.

...

They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.

You're grasping at straws.

Paramount/CBS dumped all their Trek stuff well before any new project had been greenlighted (or even scripted) and well over a year before production started.

During that time they rejected at least two other Trek projects.

Trek was dead before Abrams's project got off the ground. No matter what happens with this movie, it can't leave Trek in worse shape than existed before Paramount turned their dead Franchise over to him; that precise shape being: no TV or film projects in production, no real interest in any Trek projects that had been presented to them. And taking whatever money they could get to empty their warehouses of old Trek props and miniatures which were of no use whatever to them and that they never expected would be again.

They probably did Abrams a favor with that last bit - after all, since thanks to the studio's disinterest in Trek there were no sets left to recycle one more time no one could argue with the expense of rebuilding the whole shebang differently.

 

[Psion]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.

You're grasping at straws.

Paramount/CBS dumped all their Trek stuff well before any new project had been greenlighted (or even scripted) and well over a year before production started.

During that time they rejected at least two other Trek projects.

Trek was dead before Abrams's project got off the ground. No matter what happens with this movie, it can't leave Trek in worse shape than existed before Paramount turned their dead Franchise over to him; that precise shape being: no TV or film projects in production, no real interest in any Trek projects that had been presented to them. And taking whatever money they could get to empty their warehouses of old Trek props and miniatures which were of no use whatever to them and that they never expected would be again.

They probably did Abrams a favor with that last bit - after all, since thanks to the studio's disinterest in Trek there were no sets left to recycle one more time no one could argue with the expense of rebuilding the whole shebang differently.

Here's the big Christies Star Trek auction. Please note the dates ... October 5, 6, and 7th of 2006.

Here's the first announcement of Abram's involvement posted on TrekToday. This time, you'll note the date of April 21, 2006. If I whip out my trusty fingers and count, I get ... one, two, three, four, five, six ... six months and a few spare weeks after the announcement of the movie before the Christies auction. And according to this Wikipedia entry, "Development of the film began in 2005 when Paramount Pictures contacted Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman for ideas to revive the franchise." Even assuming the latest month in 2005, that's still ten months before the Christies auction (wow, almost had to whip out my toes).

This was less than a year after Enterprise had been canceled. By what twisted plot device do you reason that "Paramount/CBS dumped all their Trek stuff well before any new project had been greenlighted"? Was it Daniels or Nero who screwed up your calendar?

Alright, I'm being a little disrespectful here as well as disingenuous. There's the issue of when Paramount actually "dumped" the memorabilia versus the actual auction. As near as I can find, that was some time around April or May of 2006, so at best (worst?), Star Trek was "dead" a couple weeks.

But all that is completely irrelevant anyway. Paramount's decision probably had less to do with Star Trek's vital signs than Paramount's own financial state. Storing all that stuff must have cost them something. And they knew they'd get a fair chunk of change back from any auction. I think this whole notion of Trek being dead in the first place isn't just your idea, but typical entertainment industry hyperbole. I doubt anyone seriously thought there'd never be another Trek production filmed again.

I have to give you credit, though -- the auction is almost certainly responsible for at least some of the change in set design. The conspiracy nut in me wonders if part of the motivation for the auction was to force Abram's hand. "Y'know, we're getting rid of all that stuff ... why don't you come up with something new?"

Incidentally, I know of Straczynski's pitch ... what was the other one?

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.

 

[Psion]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.

By the account I cited, that was in April, 2006. Aside from that, I'm sure the rest of what you say is true.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

...

[...]

During that time they rejected at least two other Trek projects.
[...]

[...]

Incidentally, I know of Straczynski's pitch ... what was the other one?

That's probably the Jendresen script, which Berman was supposed to be producing while still under contract.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning

 

[MadBaggins]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

That looks so bad that I just punched myself in the neck. FUCK.

 

[Psion]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

That's probably the Jendresen script, which Berman was supposed to be producing while still under contract.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning

Awesome, thanks! I must have been sleeping under a rock with cotton stuffed in my ears. The Romulan Wars might be good for storylines, but I'm almost tempted to give Dennis the win on this and say ... my god that sounded boring.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.

By the account I cited, that was in April, 2006. Aside from that, I'm sure the rest of what you say is true.

100% of what I said is true...not sure what you cited, but there was no budget for star trek until 2007. JJ Abrams was developing a Trek project under his own overall Paramount/Bad Robot deal. The film was green lit in February 2007 and that is when it had a budget. Also the Jendresen project was funded out of the Kerner producers overall deal and again not part of a 'trek budget' (Berman had nothing to do with the project besides one awkward meeting with Jendresen). The Trek budget ceased after production on Enterprise ceased....starting then the Trek storage started burning a hole in the facilities budget for Paramount with no 'cost center' to assign it to....the solution was to sell it

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Straczynski's pitch was never rejected, because it was never actually submitted. Jendresen's was one; the second project I was thinking of was the animated 25 century Trek series.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Straczynski's pitch was never rejected, because it was never actually submitted. Jendresen's was one; the second project I was thinking of was the animated 25 century Trek series.

That's the one Dave Rossi was working on?

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Untitled_Star_Trek_animated_series

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Yep.

 

[trevanian]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.

By the account I cited, that was in April, 2006. Aside from that, I'm sure the rest of what you say is true.

100% of what I said is true...not sure what you cited, but there was no budget for star trek until 2007. JJ Abrams was developing a Trek project under his own overall Paramount/Bad Robot deal. The film was green lit in February 2007 and that is when it had a budget. Also the Jendresen project was funded out of the Kerner producers overall deal and again not part of a 'trek budget' (Berman had nothing to do with the project besides one awkward meeting with Jendresen). The Trek budget ceased after production on Enterprise ceased....starting then the Trek storage started burning a hole in the facilities budget for Paramount with no 'cost center' to assign it to....the solution was to sell it

I think maybe you're the one splitting hairs now. Cost center, huh? Paramount has a history with Trek of building sets without a budget, or even a firm starting date. Phase II is proof of that, where the crew just kept wiring more stuff, asking how much money do we have, oh don't worry about it ...

if Abrams was developing a pic in spring of one year, you'd better believe both he and Par had a ballpark ides of what the budget would be, well before the show was greenlit a year later. So the selling off of stuff when they had a pretty good idea they would be going ahead is a clear indication that NOT REUSING OLD STUFF was probably part of Abrams overall deal, just like most directors who replace another director in mid-shoot usually insist on throwing the first guy's stuff away and starting over. Maybe selling off the stuff actually allowed them to apply some of that to the budget?